I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old.
Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens & earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Chris Zell <[email protected]> wrote: > I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating > results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in > various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive > decay is an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate. > > I found it dishonest to point out different potential defects in > different dating methods while ignoring the whole of the subject. > Eventually, I was forced to conclude that there must be something wrong > with radioactive decay rates themselves - to save my faith. > > While I am still somewhat skeptical about such rates, the burden is on > Fundamentalists to come up with a radically different version of physics > that allows for such variability. I think C-14 rates have been generally > correlated with Egyptian history. > > Actually, if you think about it, if Fundamentalists could demonstrate a > convenient method of upsetting such decay rates, it would radically upset > the world as the equivalent of 'free energy'. >
